.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Friday, May 19, 2006

Plame Gossip - Rove Watch

It's too early still to call it officially, but since apparently there's been no announcement of a Fitzgerald press conference yet, I wouldn't be holding my breath. It looks like public action is increasingly unlikely today.

Update: Well, sort of. Steve Clemons has a post naming Armitage as the first leaker(disregard all the Inman crap at the top), and that from day one he has testified three times before the grand jury and been "a completely straight shooter." (That fits with other information, reporting, and reasoned speculation. Set it as a probable guess.)

Also according to Clemons, although I would give this a little less creedence, Fitzgerald is no longer interested in the "outing" of Plame but in the coverup, and that it is Armitage, more than anything else, that has put Rove in major risk of indictment.

Hmmm.... So, in this storyline, Armitage outs Plame, recognizes his mistake, tells Colin Powell everything, then tells Fitzgerald everything, and then Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and the rest try to cover up...... what?

Do you think Rove/Libby risked perjury well into the investigation to cover for Armitage who "isn't one of them" and was cooperating? Was the coverup simply designed to hide the fact that they tried to hatchett Wilson's credibility? Hardly seems worth the risk. Why the coverup then?

We're missing some key element here.

(And, as for the Leopold "controversy," I still hold the opinion that if the story is/was wrong, he was set up. I've heard his interview, read the stuff from Mark Ash, Larry Johnson, etc, I believe he honestly reported what he was told.)

(Also, just as a reminder, I went back through some of my old Plame Gossip pieces around the Libby indictment and the similarities in the coverage are comical. A ton of speculation, reporting, and defense lawyer spinning(lying) having Cheney, Rove, Hadley, Hannah and others indicted or free. Weeks of "Fitzgerald's indictments could be imminent." Tea leaf reading that was just ridiculous. And almost all of it turned out to be pretty dicey reporting.

So, just a reminder that this is the Plame Gossip section of the blog. It's interesting, it's fun, but nothing is guaranteed true until we hold Fitzgerald's indictments in our collective electronic hands. - Mike)

12 Comments:

  • So when does Leopold burn his sources, as promised?

    By Blogger Greyhair, at 11:24 AM  

  • I don't know. I would wager that he will probably stall awhile first, witing, hoping that maybe Fitzgerald put on the brakes for some reason.

    And, again, I don't really see the value in that for him. Certainly he has the ability to screw them over, mess up their careers, but do you think that would make them more likely or less likely to confirm they spoke with him?

    If he doesn't have something in writing, outing those sources won't help him.

    It sounds really good though, doesn't it?

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 11:29 AM  

  • It's about accountability.

    If it was a Rove team plant, disclosing the source could lead to revealing the plant. Plus, revealing the source would break that sources credibility for the future and make others think twice before burning Leopold again.... even if the burn was just stupid information.

    Leopold is going to take a huge hit anyway if nothing happens today. Even if Rove is indicted eventually, the longer it takes, the more it just looks like coincidence rather than Leopold having a scoop.

    IMO, Leopold's credibility is on the line and he gains by carrying out his vow to reveal his source. Not revealing it further reduces his credibility .... what's left anyway.

    By Blogger Greyhair, at 12:00 PM  

  • When do they commission the mini series? Mind you, the plot is getting a little complex for the average person.
    I note there is a spin-off series in the offing already; Judith Miller starring in ‘I knew about 9/11 at 9/9’, another killer from Intrigue Central.

    By Blogger Cartledge, at 12:55 PM  

  • You make a good argument, Greyhair. Although, I really doubt that outing the sources would establish a chain. They have violated no law, there is no way to force honesty out of them. If they say no, there's nothing more.

    And Leopold's cridibility takes a hit from today no matter what happens. I think you're right that he's in a position where he has to name them now. He loses everyway, but at least he has a claim if he outs them.

    And, Cartledge, I don't know what to make of Judy's claims. I read the articles and pretty much what shje's claiming is that someone told her an attack was possible. Shoe couldn't source it at all. It's basically the information contained in the Aug 8 PDB, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US." She had no information about 9/11 itself, just reports of chatter and boasting.

    To me, it's just her exaggerating her own position. I haven't read everything, but it seems like an effort to get her name and new position very public. So, I'm not covering her.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:05 PM  

  • Just to further clarify, let me put it another way.

    Substitute Judy Miller for Leopold, the NY Times for Truthout, and WMD for the Plame leak.

    The debate about anonymous sources has been raging for some time. I just think it's time for "journalists" to hold their sources accountable rather than simply be whored by manipulative story spinning. And if it was a stupid amateur gossiping, oh well.

    BTW, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't hold you in any way responsible for blogging it. Some sanctimonious bloggers *cough* John Avarosis *cough* have been flogging bloggers who reported Leopold's story.

    Pardon my french but fuck em'. I take an attitude of I report, you decide. What I write is my opinions anyway as I don't hold myself out as a journalist, and I don't believe you do either.

    By Blogger Greyhair, at 4:31 PM  

  • If Leopold "outs" his sources I feel very little will be accomplished. They will of course deny talking to him, deny everything. He must have records to back himself up: phone records, recordings, something other than his word of who he talked to. I feel bad for the guy, and I still hold out hope that he will be proven right in the end.

    This is so bad for TruthOut as well. I have seen tons of trashing of both Leopold and TruthOut on the web this week.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 4:37 PM  

  • Greyhair, people can blame me, I don't care. I'm not a news organization, I'm just a crazy guy with a keyboard.

    I blogged his original story breathlessly because it amazed me and it was a huge story. In the past Leopold has broken stories that were later picked up by the majors, and I really expected to wak up Sunday morning with confirmation. I've covered what I think is a rational selection of the criticism. I've thrown in my two cents. And if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong in the face of evidence. It's not that big of a deal to me.

    And, just as context, I didn't really write much about the Judy Miller downfall except how it related to the Plame case and the politics around the war, that she was in effect serving as a conduit for white house disinformation. I don't care about Judy Miller, I cared about the White House pushing disinformation to sell a war.

    I generally don't like to get too far into media criticism because for me it's an endless and unproductive black hole.

    I do want to draw on one other thing though. Jason Leopold does not hold the preeminent heights the way Judy Miller did as one of the top WMD reporters at the top newspaper in the world. He's a front edge reporter for a small time outfit. I don't know why the criticism has been so nasty just because he MAY HAVE gotten a story wrong.

    It happens. Sometimes honest reporting is wrong, and the further you are out on the leading edge, the more likely that is to happen. I have to say, that until Fitzgerald actually holds the press conference we don't know that the bones of the story aren't still true. We know that there was a big meeting at Patton Boggs Friday with the whole 4th floor locked down. Does that support? Not necessarily, but it might, so I'm still holding judgement on the whole thing.

    But this is what kills me. This is why I avoid media criticism. I've spent how much time writing about this, and whether he's right or wrong, we didn't learn anything of use in turning this country around. So, no more.


    Dusty and Greyhari again, I understand the outing of sources as an effort to hold them accountable, but we don't know the story. There's so many imprecise factors involved.

    And I don't know why the criticism has been so nasty. I think it's because people are frustrated about the Rove thing. I mean, who was really impacted if this story is bad? Again, this isn't the NYTimes we're talking about. They got the freaking war intel wrong for 6 months and didn't get this level of nastiness.

    Enough, no more. Whether it's right or wrong, I've spent too much time on this "controversy" and not enough on the real story.

    (For what it's worth, I do believe that Leopold reported honestly, if a bit sensationalist.)

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 5:35 PM  

  • I blogged Leopolds story the minute I got the email from Truthout. Do I feel stupid? No. Do I feel used? No. I feel as noted above that there are far too many angles on this story to make a decision on the whats and whys of Leopolds decision to print the story. I think also that Jason reported what he was told..if he didn't we will find that out..it will be a huge story..but for now..its a non-story..Leopold, Rove and TruthOut are a non-story until something is reported.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 6:39 PM  

  • Mike, you're welcome to respond to my post however you choose.

    http://bendtherail.blogspot.com/2006/05/leopold.html

    By Blogger Greyhair, at 8:18 PM  

  • Mike,

    Have you seen the NY Daily News article by Bazinet and Meek saying Fitz snuck Armitage in the GJ recently, Armitage is a big-time witness for the prosecution who has been cooperating since Day One, Armitage did talk to reporters about Plame but urged them NOT to write about her (perhaps w/ Woodward?), and Armitage may have info that is not helpful to Libby/Rove?

    The Daily News polticial reporters are the real deal, so I think this report is accurate. It sounds about right too. Obviously somebody leaked Armitage's side to the Daily News to pushback against the Bobby Ray Inman remark to Seteve Clemons that Armitage is Fitz's target. Still, it fills some things in for us. I wonder if the Armitage testimony has anything to do this weeks weird and ultimately ant--climactic events in Plamegate.

    Oh, and the Daily News also floats the idea (anonymously sourced as someone close to the case) that Rove could be an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. I don't know how that fits in.

    Link:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/419364p-354152c.html

    By Blogger Reality-Based Educator, at 1:26 PM  

  • No, I didn't see that. That's news!

    And unindicted coconspirator? Sheer speculation, the coverup is obviously the conspiracy, but who or what would he let Rove deal that far down for? The missing emails? A larger crime? A more culpable suspect?

    I'll check it out. Very interesting, thanks.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 2:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home